342 réponses à ce sujet

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...
Yet as it stands real roleplayers are screwed because they need to have a high enough Paragon or Renegade meter in order to make certain responses.

This isn't an issue with an imported character. Granted, I didn't go for the neutral responses a lot, but I went about 60:40 renegade/paragon on my first playthrough with the imported save, and I think the only option I didn't get was to kill Samara. It's a nice little bonus to reward people who have played ME1.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 07 novembre 2010 - 08:01 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

[Edit: Circumventing the censor feature of the forums (in a particularly crude fashion) only serves to get your banned. - Pacifien]

Modifié par Pacifien, 07 novembre 2010 - 09:42 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 certainly wasn't "progression" in any real way, at least not gameplay wise. More like "regression" if anything.

I'm all for innovation and progression where it fits, but innovation and progression isn't the same as oversimpifying and dumbing down and it certainly doesn't cover changing the style of game to suit the masses and making it like every other game out there.

The only reason people call ME2 innovative is because their definition of the work "innovative" is "make it more to suit me."

Sticking to its roots isn't innovative either - People claim to want innovation, but will still buy the next Call of Duty in droves even though the last one did jack squat for the genre.

~Puts on Elcor Mask~
Confused. What you are saying is
1 ) Call of Duty - game do not change hence not innovative.

2 ) People who like the changes and find the changes to their liking calls these changes "innovation".

3 ) People who do not like the changes may perceive them as oversimplifying/dumbing down; or maybe over complicating things.

Conclusion. The meaning of "innovation" changes from human to human based on individual preference. When one human likes a certain change, it is labeled "innovation" otherwise it is labeled "dumbing down", "oversimplifying", etc. 

Extremely confused. Why are you arguing with yourself?

 sry - cant help it

Hehe, I actualy agree with this one,
little bit. This is how it often happens. It's about does person like
the direction where something goes. Persons reaction is based did they
like it or not.

How ever, ME2 did simplify alot of stuff, but it
also did take some features in different direction, not just simplifyed.
Also simplifying or new direction  isn't allways bad thing, it can also
be good thing. I agree with Terror_K that ME2 over did some stuff,
mostly limiting customation way too much.

This is mostly true, but not quite 100% accurate. If ME2 has simplified some things but hadn't gone too far with them I wouldn't have said it was "dumbed down" or "oversimplified" but nor would I have said it was "innovative" either. If BioWare really had just made the existing mechanics easier to access, less cumbersome and overall smoother and yet retained the functionality and depth of them then I would have actually agreed that they'd "streamlined" the process and it would have made for a better game and been "progression" and a good move, but that still wouldn't really be innovation. If they'd done this and then added more functionality as well and done something few other games had done, then I would consider it "innovation."

The thing is, while I like innovation, I don't actually think it's necessary to make a good game, or a good sequel. I'd be happy playing a KotOR 3 made in the same engine as the first ones and with the same style of gameplay and merely a different story and characters. And I personally prefer innovation to come to sequels in the form of little yet meaningful changes and adding more to what's already there than in big sweeping changes that alter the very form and function of the game itself. This is what ME2 did, and on top of that didn't really add more in most cases but instead took it away in a "less is more" approach that didn't really work, then tried to make up for it with flashy little shallow replacements such as Normandy quarters customisation and armour colouring. It's like BioWare took away any real form of meaningful customisation and held up some shiny trinkets to distract us away from it, and then when you play with the shiny trinkets you discover they're made of plastic.

ME2 isn't "dumbed down" and "oversimplified" rather than "streamined" and "innovative" because it changed things up and made them easier to access, but because it went too far and took aspects away entirely or reduced them to their bare bones and doesn't even really let us touch them. The awful research/upgrade system automatically eliminates mods, omni-tools, biotic amps, etc. alone and replaces it with a linear, shallow system that just allows God-modding and doesn't even really give us proper control or customisation. ME1 had a clumsy inventory system, but BioWare didn't need to simplify it to the point of letting it basically do all the work for you without any real input from you at all.

Put it this way... I like to drive cars, and ME1 was like driving a car. Sure, it may have been a car with 12 gears when you only needed 5, and 6 pedals when you only needed 3, but I still got to drive it where I wanted and how I wanted. I had control, and while the car was best when driven in a certain manner, I still got to choose how I went about things. ME2 feels more like a taxi ride by comparison: you go to it and are told to sit in the back while a driver named BioWare takes you on the most direct path to your destination, and it's almost the same thing every time you get in it. You don't get to choose how, or change gears, or choose your speed or even pick the radio station. It's all done for you in an overconvenient manner that just has you sitting in the back and going along for the ride, and it may be entertaining the first few trips, but from there things get tedious and repetitive fast. And I'm worried that if BioWare doesn't start to listen to those of us that are unhappy in our taxi cabs, instead of getting cars back again we can drive ourselves we'll end up getting a train in ME3, where we're put on the rails and have to show up at set times and there's even less choice in the matter.

[Chloe_W1971]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

And driving the Mako around wasn't tedious at all...

Nope. I enjoyed the whole exploration bit in the Mako.

[Getorex]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I don't see reason why science fiction can't be done today standard, I don't want live in past.

Because sci-fi was just so much better in that era. Sci-fi today is too overly gritty and edgy and tries to take itself too seriously with its overall mood and style, yet is also too easily willing to throw any sense aside for the sake of being cool and badass. ME1 really did come across as a great homage to great sci-fi of the past, which is what the devs actually said they were going for in the first place,

Ah and there you lost me. What I am hoping for from ME3 AND the movie is "gritty", "realism" (within the bounds of this being scifi - it CAN be done ala hard scifi), "visceral".

This can be done well or it can be a mismatch depending on the writing and the story. If the writing is poor, then being gritty or real can seem patently ridiculous and very B-movie. Don't want that.

For the movie: I would like to see (personal preference) is gritty and real scifi akin to "Saving Private Ryan" with high tech and spacesuits.

I'd like ME3 to go that way as much as possible but would certainly be happy with LotSB class writing too. Neither the game (nor the movie) needs to be a comic book brought to life, nor a superhero story (yet another one) brought to life.

Scifi of the 80s did include the original "Alien", "Bladerunner", and the like. Those were gritty, real, and well written, well produced (excellently produced, in fact). So was the ORIGINAL "Terminator".

[The Spamming Troll]

ME3 should be alot more similar to ME1, rather then ME2. graphics will always be better, so im 50/50 on thinking a remake of ME1 would be better then making ME3. i dont really need many things offered to me in ME2, other then it being a sci fi shooter as opposed to everything bioware gave me in ME1.



ME2 is confusing. is it an improvement over ME1? i guess. but then again is ME1 a better game? absolutely.

[Chloe_W1971]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Chloe_W1971 wrote...
Nope. I enjoyed the whole exploration bit in the Mako.

I hear navel gazing and the curling of linoleum can be thrilling as well. Competitive hair growing is also becoming quite the popular sport too. It those are a little over the top, digestion offers quality entertainment that the whole family can enjoy. 

Well played, sir. Also, I was trying to drink coffee when I read that. I guess my faculty will want a new keyboard now.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Because sci-fi was just so much better in that era. Sci-fi today is too overly gritty and edgy and tries to take itself too seriously with its overall mood and style, yet is also too easily willing to throw any sense aside for the sake of being cool and badass. ME1 really did come across as a great homage to great sci-fi of the past, which is what the devs actually said they were going for in the first place, 

i take particular issue with this: now you're judging all of science fiction, in every format?!  and making massive generalisations... good science fiction most certainly does not "throw sense aside for the sake of being cool and badass" as you put it - perhaps you should be more discerning with the drivel you obviously consume. i read only good science fiction, play only good science fiction, and mass effect series is at the top of the heap there.

Getorex wrote...

Ah and there you lost me. What I am hoping for from ME3 AND the movie is "gritty", "realism" (within the bounds of this being scifi - it CAN be done ala hard scifi), "visceral".

This can be done well or it can be a mismatch depending on the writing and the story. If the writing is poor, then being gritty or real can seem patently ridiculous and very B-movie. Don't want that.

For the movie: I would like to see (personal preference) is gritty and real scifi akin to "Saving Private Ryan" with high tech and spacesuits.

I'd like ME3 to go that way as much as possible but would certainly be happy with LotSB class writing too. Neither the game (nor the movie) needs to be a comic book brought to life, nor a superhero story (yet another one) brought to life.

Scifi of the 80s did include the original "Alien", "Bladerunner", and the like. Those were gritty, real, and well written, well produced (excellently produced, in fact). So was the ORIGINAL "Terminator".

agreed. the tone has been set and i fail to see how - at least parts - of ME3 won't be darker and grittier than either previous game.

[Chloe_W1971]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...
My condolences. It's too bad, he was such a nice guy and taken from us far too soon. RIP keyboard.

Yeah, well, I'm sure someone found the coffee volcano to be an inspiring sight. I guess it's back to the extreme paint-drying contest for me.

Still, while I agree that (largeish) parts of driving my Mako through the sand (or the sleet, or the ice, or the grass or the FRACKING MOUNTAINS) were a more, shall we say, meditative experience, it still was mostly enjoyable - with the exception that Joker apparently is a sadist for dropping us in the highest mountain ranges he can find.

Exploration in a vehicle can be pretty cool, though. Provided it's well done. Not the looooooooooooooooooong and drawn-out Mako rides, maybe, but the EZ-Mode Firewalker fly-through-this-corridor-and-hover-over-the-glowing-spots-long-enough-to-get-some-spare-change Missions were far too linear for my taste. Some kind of happy in-between thing would be nice.

[Chloe_W1971]

Entering and exiting the Hammerhead would be a step in the right direction. Also, the missiles as they are now have to go. Adding a machinegun is a good idea, but I'm also partial to a more challenging gunnery experience. The automatic-hit-no-save missiles from the Firewalker/Overlord pack, where you have to go to great lengths to miss a target (i.e. missing is more of an effort than hitting) were pretty bad.

An area like the one in Overlord for exploration (actually, I'd vote for slightly larger areas) on some (but not all) planets with an actual mission objective that is not "Collect all the valuable minerals, archeological and sociological treasures along with the odd Protean USB stick, Oh, and we almost forgot, we'd like you to fight through the exact same 2 standard buildings on 90% of all worlds, that would be great, thanks." would do much to make a lot of people happy, I think.

Also, they need to lose the planet-scanning part or make it at least mildly interesting.

Modifié par Chloe_W1971, 09 novembre 2010 - 06:53 .

[Chloe_W1971]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Absolutely. Keep the missiles, but make them less rapid fire. No missile spam. Their should be a lock-on function like when selecting a target for your squadmates to focus. A salvo of rockets, say 2-4 max is then fired.
I'm totally down with large worlds for exploration. I'm thinking the combined size of Overlord, not just main open area before moving on to the various stations. I wouldn't even mind a few empty places like ME1 even with the same-y bunkers. It would lead a hand to the rugged outpost motif. Those missions would have to be more than USB collection for sure, I agree 100%.

Planet scanning needs to be done over yes. I'm thinking The display could show where resources are all at once. Use a colour coded scheme for this. Red is iridium and so forth. Instead of launching probes to those locations, a simple " Mine Area- Press A" would suffice. In depth scanning involving the crosshairs could be reserved for tracking anomolous signals like distress beacons, then launch probe. The planet advisories should come into affect too. If there's a warning about pirates or civil war, let's have random encounters. Maybe we get into unexpected battles. It would create an atmosphere of uncertainty that would go very well with the exploring the unknown reaches of space.

Yes! Random encounters on the surface of contested worlds. Maybe even a larger scale battle where the combatants either start fighting us, or simply go "Huh, interesting" and go back to their merry soldiering business, taking no interest whatsoever in us.

We also keep reading and hearing about Batarian raids on worlds in the Terminus. I haven't really seen one, though, apart from the asteroid thingie in ME1. That would also be an amusing mission. Maybe even with a time limit, like "We have reports of a Batarian raid in progress on world XYZ. Blah blah blah, the attackers are advancing on the main settlement of Homesteadistan, ETA 4 hours. Enemy strength and disposition unknown." So you either decide to go there and stop the raid, with some possible goodies for your trouble, or you decide not to go, in which case you get no goodies and your image takes a hit towards the Renegade side.

[Terror_K]

Getorex wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I don't see reason why science fiction can't be done today standard, I don't want live in past.

Because sci-fi was just so much better in that era. Sci-fi today is too overly gritty and edgy and tries to take itself too seriously with its overall mood and style, yet is also too easily willing to throw any sense aside for the sake of being cool and badass. ME1 really did come across as a great homage to great sci-fi of the past, which is what the devs actually said they were going for in the first place,

Ah and there you lost me. What I am hoping for from ME3 AND the movie is "gritty", "realism" (within the bounds of this being scifi - it CAN be done ala hard scifi), "visceral".

This can be done well or it can be a mismatch depending on the writing and the story. If the writing is poor, then being gritty or real can seem patently ridiculous and very B-movie. Don't want that.

For the movie: I would like to see (personal preference) is gritty and real scifi akin to "Saving Private Ryan" with high tech and spacesuits.

I'd like ME3 to go that way as much as possible but would certainly be happy with LotSB class writing too. Neither the game (nor the movie) needs to be a comic book brought to life, nor a superhero story (yet another one) brought to life.

Scifi of the 80s did include the original "Alien", "Bladerunner", and the like. Those were gritty, real, and well written, well produced (excellently produced, in fact). So was the ORIGINAL "Terminator".

I agree with you though, because they did it well and used it naturally, while not being afraid to take their time and were actually properly dark. What I mean is that today's sci-fi generally tries too hard to be all gritty and grimdark and fails utterly because they do it in such a juvenile, rushed and over-the-top manner, completely lacking in subtlety and quality. It's like they're purposefully going "look at me! I'm all gritty and real and hard-edged and badass!" and rubbing in in your face, rather than actually letting the tone and style merely speak for itself. Those movies you list, as I said, we're afraid to set the mood and give long, slow moments of darkness and silence, while modern sci-fi tries to rush things too much and throw action at you all the time in case the viewer gets bored or something.

[ScooterPie88]

OP I begin to question your objectivity and credibility with these continual ME2 bashing posts of yours. You refuse to even acknowledge that ME2 did ANYTHING better.



I think the original had good points; I wouldn't have bought 2 if it didn't. To say that ME was better in every way is absurd. The graphics were better in 2. So was the framerate. So were the gameplay mechanics. DLC has been better and more consistent in 2 (I still have nightmares about being trapped on Pinnacle Station).



To have certain issues with ME2 is one thing. To dismiss the whole package as inferior is just inaccurate. Most reasonable critics are at least able to give ME2 credit where it is due. I for one found ME2 better in almost every catagory. That's simply my opinion. ME2 has recieved almost universal acclaim though in some areas. Ninety percent of the gaming populace that has played or reviewed ME2 can't be wrong.

[Terror_K]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

OP I begin to question your objectivity and credibility with these continual ME2 bashing posts of yours. You refuse to even acknowledge that ME2 did ANYTHING better.

I think the original had good points; I wouldn't have bought 2 if it didn't. To say that ME was better in every way is absurd. The graphics were better in 2. So was the framerate. So were the gameplay mechanics. DLC has been better and more consistent in 2 (I still have nightmares about being trapped on Pinnacle Station).

To have certain issues with ME2 is one thing. To dismiss the whole package as inferior is just inaccurate. Most reasonable critics are at least able to give ME2 credit where it is due. I for one found ME2 better in almost every catagory. That's simply my opinion. ME2 has recieved almost universal acclaim though in some areas. Ninety percent of the gaming populace that has played or reviewed ME2 can't be wrong.

So you're saying the majority can't be wrong and that the majority is always right then? If that's how you feel, then fine... but that's not how I feel at all. By that logic we may as well turn ME3 into a Call of Duty clone since that's the biggest selling IP at the moment amongst the casual gamer of today. And that's what happens when you make a game more aimed at the mainstream audience: of course more people will like it. When you cater the game more to the masses by oversimplifying it, of course the masses like it.

Now, to be fair, this thread wasn't supposed to be an "ME2 bashing" one, but was instead meant to offer some suggestions on improving ME3 in a more positive manner.

Futhermore, I fully admit that ME2 did a lot of things better. Even some of the things it didn't I found were often steps in the right direction merely taken too far. Much of ME2's issues seemed to be overcompensation for ME1's failings. I'm hoping ME3 finds the right balance.

The thing is, I purposefully hold back on praising ME2 for a very simple reason: I think it gets more than enough praise as it is, and I personally find so many faults with ME2 that I don't believe that praising ME2 is the right thing to do, and all it will do is encourage the devs that they made all the right moves with ME2, which I don't believe they did. I have praised the DLC for the most part... aside from The Hammerhead which I thought was rubbish. But I gave Overlord a positive review and LotSB a glowing one, so... yeah, there's at least that in my defense.

The thing is, I don't feel ME2 is necessarily a bad game, because it's not. I just think it's a bad sequel to ME1, a bad RPG and a bad "part two of three" basically. Had ME2 been the first part of the series or a standalone affair or something most of my issues with it would have gone. That said, I also would never have got into it like I did with ME1. To me ME1 was more than just a game, and had ME2 been ME1 then it would have just been another game to me.

[ScooterPie88]

No the majority is not always right. I'm just saying that within its class most people find ME2 appealing. Myself I own some games that are absolute garbage (Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings Gamespot 3.5). I had fun with it for one playthrough though so I don't care what the reviews say. I've played ME2 exactly double the times I played ME1 because in ME1 being a completionist took about the same time as ME2 but it felt like I was being tortured doing cookie cutter sidequests. I don't see why one has to be all or nothing in their responses to ME2. Praise what they did right (which IMO was a whole lot) and critize CONSTRUCTIVELY what you felt they did wrong. There is no reason not to give praise where it is due. I admit there were some minor things in ME2 that annoyed me. Still I enjoyed the presentation more than ME1.



I don't find ME2 "dumbed down." Going through endless inventory lists and selling what the statistics say is garbage does not take a rocket science nor does it define an RPG. When I think RPG I think stories where I decide the outcome. That is exactly what ME1 and ME2 are. Neither are "heavy" RPGs similar to DA:O. Neither ME title had indiviual stat building. That is one element of RPG but not a required one. Again the only thing I find defines an RPG is the ability to make choices that will effect the outcome of the game. Also for those so content on the idea that ME2 did not have an inventory let me direct you to something I posted in another thread:



"What I don't understand is how people fail to realize that ME2 had an inventory. You couldn't sell stuff or loot but it did have one. You had a cache of weapons and a locker for your armor. You were able to choose what you used and for your squadmates at least what weapon they used. It may not be an inventory in the traditional sense but it does fit the definition of an inventory."



Again sifting through endless lists of junk is not what makes an inventory an inventory nor does the ability or lack thereof to sell things.

[Lunatic LK47]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I don't find ME2 "dumbed down." Going through endless inventory lists and selling what the statistics say is garbage does not take a rocket science nor does it define an RPG. When I think RPG I think stories where I decide the outcome. That is exactly what ME1 and ME2 are. Neither are "heavy" RPGs similar to DA:O. Neither ME title had indiviual stat building. That is one element of RPG but not a required one. Again the only thing I find defines an RPG is the ability to make choices that will effect the outcome of the game. Also for those so content on the idea that ME2 did not have an inventory let me direct you to something I posted in another thread:

"What I don't understand is how people fail to realize that ME2 had an inventory. You couldn't sell stuff or loot but it did have one. You had a cache of weapons and a locker for your armor. You were able to choose what you used and for your squadmates at least what weapon they used. It may not be an inventory in the traditional sense but it does fit the definition of an inventory."

Again sifting through endless lists of junk is not what makes an inventory an inventory nor does the ability or lack thereof to sell things.

This. I even stopped playing Dragon Age: Origins because of this crap, and I only saved the Circle of Magi at that point.

[Terror_K]

It wasn't the lack of an inventory system that made Mass Effect "dumbed down" and oversimplified, it was the reduction of skills (particularly non-combat ones), the complete lack of items, the complete lack of customisation, the way the game did most of the work automatically for you and didn't let you even change things, the way the game was presented like a children's toy, etc.



Simplification and streamlining is good if you make what's there easier and more user-friendly and retain the depth and functionality in the process. ME2 didn't do that, and instead stripped away most factors entirely and substituted them with the easiest alternatives, taking away customisation, player choice and many elements I enjoyed in the process. The research/upgrade system is a clear example of this, replacing several factors in ME1 with a shallow, linear and unsatisfactory system that IMO breaks the game due to its oversimplicity. Like I said before, ME1 was like driving a car, while ME2 feels like a taxi ride.



Yes, ME2 admittedly did some good things, but also every one of those good things has an "except..." or "but..." attached to it. For every change they made that was good in one way, it harmed the game in another. Overall ME2 was a case of --as I said-- overcompensating for ME1's problems to the point of sucking much of the fun and depth out of them too. People say they cut the fat, but while they may have they also chopped off a whole bunch of good meat in the process, leaving me with a small cube that's largely unsatisfying and barely worth even calling an "RPG" any more.



ME2 had great cinematics that were even better than ME1's, improved lighting and textures, better gunplay, some really interesting missions, characters and situations, and interrupts were awesome. Reducing the amount of weapons was a good idea, as was reducing the complexity of the inventory: both were good moves, but taken too far. Overlord really showed us what the potential for side-missions could be and LotSB was probably the best mission and even writing in the game. The bigger Normandy was great, as was customising it. Companions didn't dry up as quickly as they did in ME1.



It's hard for me to praise ME2 much beyond that because while you may find ME2 better in most regards, I actually find it worse and a step backwards in most regards. To me, ME1 was an experience, while ME2 was just a game. A good game admittedly, but it lacked that special something that its predecessor had, and didn't seem as rich or deep. I also found some gameplay decisions to just be outright bad ideas, while with ME1 despite its flaws I generally found it had good concepts that simply weren't executed quite as well as they could have been. If ME1 was anything it was a game of potential, and I feel ME2 squandered that potential for the most part.



I remember BioWare saying that ME1 was described as being "a flawed masterpiece" quite often, and that their mission with ME2 was to make a near-on flawless masterpiece. The thing is, I feel that while in some ways it may be a less flawed game, ME2 unfortunately isn't a masterpiece either. Somewhere while BioWare were trying to isolate and remove the flaws they also removed that which made the first a masterpiece in the process.



But all this is kind of irrelevant... the point of this thread is to try and make a better ME3, not argue whether ME1 or ME2 were better. I've seen many say they feel that the best answer lies somewhere in the middle, and I kind of agree. ME1 leaned a little too far to the left, and ME2 too far to the right, so I'm hoping ME3 is a little more balanced in the middle.

[Lumikki]

Yes, but before we CAN make ME3 better, we need to agree that both ME1 and ME2 had they own flaws and strong points. Problem is, untill you Terror_K starts to see that ME2 also have good points what some people liked, we never gonna agree here what's good for ME3. Because your view point is too much in ME1 style.

Example I consider weapon combat and inventory system in ME2 as huge improvement compared to ME1. Other hand ME1's weapons and armors modification was really good feature, what was totally destroyed in ME2. Also character "power" customation was way too limited and simple in ME2, while it wasn't even that good in ME1. There is alot of other issues and also features what both games failed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:36 .

[Terror_K]

That's what this thread is about, Lumikki: trying to take the best of both, eliminate the weaknesses of both and find a good balance. So far most of the responses here have been pretty positive, with a few exceptions from those who seem to want Mass Effect to be oversimplified and want to cut out the RPG gameplay features entirely.



If you look closely you'll realise that most of the suggestions draw more on the current ME2 systems, but add a little more ME1 (and other game, such as DAO, KotOR, etc.) aspects on top of that. That's because I don't think one can go back to the way ME1 was and build from there, nor can one start again for a third time from scratch. I believe the key is taking what ME2 gave us and building onto that more to return what was lost and even add some more depth here and there. If I was truly against ME2 entirely, I'd suggest another reboot or a full-on return to how things were with ME1, but I'm not. ME2 has some decent foundations in place, but they need a lot of work.